Carbon Tax Shift Reflects Broad Consensus
Jamie Dimon, Chairman and CEO JPMorgan Chase & Co. “We don’t have an energy policy, we don’t have an environmental policy, we don’t have an education policy, we don’t have an infrastructure policy. And folks, these are not partisan, ok? These are more long term. We may have, I’m going to call it institutional sclerosis. You’ve seen it happen with huge institutions, with the British Empire. We are unable to make some tough decisions, for example, it would be a shame to let gas go below $3.50 or $3.25 a gallon – we should add the taxes to BTU, charge energy. We’ll all learn to be a lot more efficient, it’s not that big a deal…And then you also have alternative energy, people aren’t gonna put $100 billion into alternative energy if oil can go back to $50. And it’s a commodity, there will be a surplus one day and it will go down. But that fortitude, someone’s gotta say the truth and help us get it done. And you the citizens of this country, I think we’re gonna have to give it back to lower paid people. You know, so they’re losing $2000 a year now on oil and on food, so it’s gotta come out of payroll taxes or low income, and we shouldn’t be selfish about it. We need a real policy, and once you have a real policy, a serious policy of the United States of America, oil future prices will start to come down…I think if we don’t get our hands around this energy issue we could severely damage the future health of the United States.”
Vinod Khosla: “From an investment perspective, the current climate finds businesses in a holding pattern, unwilling to fully commit resources because of what may happen next – carbon pricing and a fuller appreciation of the externalities of our current energy sources has the potential to blow the old investment models out of the water. What sane CEO would bet that no climate change legislation will be enacted in the next fifty years, the typical life of their investments? We must remove this unnecessary risk for our businesses. The devil we know is better than the one we don’t when it comes to climate change legislation.”
They don't come much smarter than Mr. Dimon and Mr. Khosla. And they are dead right that the way to solve climate change, improve our national security, and usher in a real, sustained economic boom for the next couple of decades is to tax income or labor less, and CO2 more. More incentives on good things and you get more of them. Less incentives on bad things, you get less. Just some of the wonders that follow from competitive, fungible markets with efficient price signals (and big externalities like climate change are not efficient!) A green (referring to both dollars and the environment) is by definition more efficient, or Pareto optimal. So let's get into the the details about one proposal that would do exactly what these gentlmen are proposing, the Carbon Tax Center's policy, which advocates a REVENUE NEUTRAL carbon tax - meaning it is not a tax hike! Rather it shifts the burden from income and productivity to dangerous greenhouse gases. CO2 should be taxed as upstream as possible, either at the well-head if it's domestic or the port if it's foreign. A good price signal would be $25/ton CO2. At this rate you could slice some $50 billion a year off income taxes, or the payroll tax, or just mail every American a check for a couple hundred dollars. And at this price, clean coal with carbon capture (IGCC + CCS) is cheaper than current coal, because of the tax savings from not emitting the CO2. Coal currently costs about 2.5 cents/kWh, clean coal about 10 cents/kWh. Prototyped concentrated solar power (CSP, like solar thermal, which is way better than photovoltaic and already has baseload reliability) today costs about 7 cents/kWh. Get it? At this price point solar beats coal! And this means lots of new investments and jobs and growth. And these technologies will not just create more economic opportunities, but better ones. It is estimated for instance that each gigawatt of solar thermal energy will require 3,400 construction jobs and 250 permanent employees, twice the rate as a typical coal or gas plant. (Krupp, 65) So now more digging....
The CTC’s proposed $37 per ton revenue-neutral carbon tax, ratcheted up the same amount each year over the next decade, is consistent with the recommended range of both the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the influential Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. A $37/ton carbon tax is equivalent to about a $10 per ton tax on carbon dioxide. CO2 would then have a price of about $100/ton at the end of 10 years under the CTC’s plan, or about $80/ton CO2 when adjusted for inflation.
This price point is consistent with the range of recommended prices provided by the IPCC and Stern review, and close to the conclusions of the Inter-Academy Council of Sciences. It is the consensus of these reports that such a level would provide the long-term price signal necessary for renewable technologies, from solar-thermal to carbon capture and storage, to be deployed at scale. It is also the consensus that it would stabilize CO2 concentrations at the threshold level of 550 ppm by century’s end. Absent such a price signal, CO2 levels under “business as usual” scenarios are projected to triple from pre-industrial levels to around 840 ppm. The last time CO2 levels were that high was about 40 million years ago when crocodiles roamed the North Pole.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cites a range of $20-80 per ton of CO2 equivalent by 2030 as the necessary level to stabilize emissions at 550 ppm. (IPCC Working Group III Report Summary for Policymakers, 19) The Stern Review cites a review of 103 separate estimates of the social cost of carbon gathered from 28 published papers. It determines the mean abatement cost from these estimates to be $29 per ton CO2 equivalent. (Stern, 287) However, the Review goes on to develop an economic model that more accurately incorporates the market valuation of risk from potential catastrophic climate change, concluding, “We would therefore point to numbers for the ‘business as usual’ social cost of carbon well above (perhaps a factor of three times) the Tol mean of $29/tCO2.” (Stern, 287) The report recommends a real CO2 price of $85/ton CO2 equivalent. The $80/ton real price of CO2 advocated by the Carbon Tax Center is then consistent with both the IPCC and Stern Review estimates.
The $80/ton CO2 price signal is also generally consistent with the conclusions of the Inter-Academy Council of Arts and Sciences. As the Inter-Academy emphasizes, it is far more critical that such a price signal be certain and long-term than it is to mandate emission cuts year by year, as a cap would do. As they write in their recent report, Lighting the Way: Toward A Sustainable Energy Future, “establishing in every market that there eventually will be an emissions price – in the range of US$ 27-41 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent – is more important than establishing exactly the number of years in which such a transition will occur.” (Chapter 4, 131) The Carbon Tax Center’s policy would put the price of CO2 in this range over a period of three or four years. It would then continue to ratchet up the price of CO2 as the transition costs to clean energies decreased alongside the renewed incentive for the development and deployment of such technologies. These reduced transition costs would act to mute the economic costs of further CO2 price increases.
It is notable that all three reports, reflecting the consensus of the scientific community, determine that there is a clear threshold price level necessary to induce widespread clean technology development. Such a price level is far from guaranteed under a cap and trade system, where prices can exhibit significant volatility. Under the Chicago Climate Exchange for example, the largest traded market in the world for greenhouse gas emissions allowances, the price per ton of CO2 has fluctuated between $1-7 over the past five years since its founding. This falls $13 below the lowest recommended level mentioned in the Stern Report, IPCC or the Inter-Academy. Such a low price level per ton does not make clean energies cost-competitive, nor does it provide the necessary incentive to prevent harmful anthropogenic climate change. A carbon tax shift guarantees price-competitiveness for renewable energies.
It is estimated that in the long-term carbon dioxide will need a price per ton of at least $30 to make the vitally important technology of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) cost-competitive. This is no small matter. As Stern notes, without CCS the world will need a “dramatic shift away from existing fossil fuel technologies” (Stern, 368). With atmospheric concentrations of CO2 already at 380 ppm, and almost certainly to reach at least 450 ppm in the coming decades, some scientists say we cannot reduce concentrations below 550 ppm without carbon capture and storage. Given the pervasiveness and entrenched interests of coal producers in both the United States and emerging economies like China, it is unlikely any mitigation legislation could move forward without meaningfully incenting CCS technology.
Dr. Klaus Lackner, Professor of Geophysics and Director of the Lenfest Center for Sustainable Energy at Columbia University, estimates the long-term cost of capturing and storing CO2 to be at or below $30 ton. He has pioneered a technology that can suck CO2 out of the air and store it safely underground in an inert solid form. As he comments, “With off-the-shelf items we have right now, I can drive the cost of CO2 capture from air below $100 per ton of CO2. And I feel that, if you pursue this longer, the ultimate end game will be below $30 per ton of CO2.” (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-june06/globalwarming_06-08.html) If his forecast proves correct, a real price of about $80/ton CO2 makes widespread deployment of CCS a no-brainer. If CCS cost reductions prove harder to come by, $80/ton CO2 makes carbon capture technologies essentially cost-competitive at current prices. The Carbon Tax Center’s plan provides the necessary incentive for the deployment of CCS under either scenario.
The bottom line is that an $80/ton long-term real price on CO2 reflects a broad scientific consensus. It is the level needed to incent the critically important long-term deployment of carbon capture and sequestration technology. Without CCS, hundreds of new coal plants in developing countries will pour tens of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in the coming decades. Without CCS you will be ignoring 55% of current CO2 emissions in the United States. CCS is a game changer. With a cap system there is no guarantee, to firms or developers or society, that CCS is an investment that will pay off. At an average price of some $4/ton CO2, like we see in the Chicago Climate Exchange or the European Union, it would be much cheaper for energy providers just to purchase allowances (or not comply) than retrofit plants with carbon capture technologies.
A tax shift is not just better for the climate and emerging clean technologies than cap and trade, it also offers the greatest potential for political compromise. These political strengths were on full display during the recent U.S. Senate debate of the Liebermann-Warner Climate Security Act. Critics of the Act correctly pointed out that the cap and trade system represents an over $4 trillion tax increase, as about 50% of the revenues raised over the next 40 years via auctioned permits are kept by the Treasury.
Add on a “safety-valve” provision (which would put a price ceiling of about $12-22 per ton CO2 via the government releasing (worthless) permits as necessary to maintain the ceiling) there is no clear price signal for carbon capture and sequestration deployment, or solar for that matter. Additionally, with a safety-valve market participants would be forced to purchase and trade permits that don’t even maintain the stated emissions reduction goals, as they are above the cap. Throw in the potential for massive volatility, and it is unclear what the adjustment and abatement costs for regulated firms will ultimately be under a cap system. And this uncertainty will only keep more clean energy capital waiting on the sidelines. As the Wall Street Journal points out, The Climate Security Act would represent the largest income redistribution since the advent of the income tax. With a tax shift from income or labor onto carbon this potent and effective argument against tackling global climate change disappears overnight.
Additionally, by returning the revenues of a carbon tax to the private sector, foreign companies that do not yet have to similarly comply will not gain a competitive advantage as domestic tax levels will remain unchanged. Such concerns could also probably be offset with WTO compliant (particularly GATT Articles 3, 11 and 20 - paper I wrote on this) cross border adjustments (tariffs) for countries that have less stringent standards than the U.S. This however would lead to long and unpleasant arbitration and probably result in retaliation by large U.S. trading partners for years to come. The fact is that with a meaningful price on carbon the United States will see huge new economic investment and growth. Jobs and capital will flow to areas like direct current transmission lines, so called “smart grids” that allow consumers to sell clean energy back to utilities via feed-in tariffs, carbon capture retrofitting, and proven renewable energy sources, among many others. Once it is apparent that a revenue neutral price on carbon is a win for the economy, the environment and national security, other countries will not be able to jump on the bandwagon fast enough. With SO2, ozone and particulate pollution it was either the EU or U.S. who first led and lesser developed countries, like China and India, who soon followed. The same would happen if the U.S. led by putting a real price on carbon. The opportunities stare the United States in the face.
The CTC’s plan has the science right. It is consistent with every major international consensus report on the economics of climate change. It is consistent with the incentive needed for critically important carbon capture and renewable energy technologies. It is revenue-neutral, unlike the fatally-flawed Climate Security Act. And with the potential for commensurate tax offsets, ranging from corporate to personal income taxes, to the FICA payroll tax, to straight dividends returned to every household – it offers a tremendous opportunity for both increased economic efficiency and political compromise. Oh yeah, and it could save the planet too.
Vinod Khosla: “From an investment perspective, the current climate finds businesses in a holding pattern, unwilling to fully commit resources because of what may happen next – carbon pricing and a fuller appreciation of the externalities of our current energy sources has the potential to blow the old investment models out of the water. What sane CEO would bet that no climate change legislation will be enacted in the next fifty years, the typical life of their investments? We must remove this unnecessary risk for our businesses. The devil we know is better than the one we don’t when it comes to climate change legislation.”
They don't come much smarter than Mr. Dimon and Mr. Khosla. And they are dead right that the way to solve climate change, improve our national security, and usher in a real, sustained economic boom for the next couple of decades is to tax income or labor less, and CO2 more. More incentives on good things and you get more of them. Less incentives on bad things, you get less. Just some of the wonders that follow from competitive, fungible markets with efficient price signals (and big externalities like climate change are not efficient!) A green (referring to both dollars and the environment) is by definition more efficient, or Pareto optimal. So let's get into the the details about one proposal that would do exactly what these gentlmen are proposing, the Carbon Tax Center's policy, which advocates a REVENUE NEUTRAL carbon tax - meaning it is not a tax hike! Rather it shifts the burden from income and productivity to dangerous greenhouse gases. CO2 should be taxed as upstream as possible, either at the well-head if it's domestic or the port if it's foreign. A good price signal would be $25/ton CO2. At this rate you could slice some $50 billion a year off income taxes, or the payroll tax, or just mail every American a check for a couple hundred dollars. And at this price, clean coal with carbon capture (IGCC + CCS) is cheaper than current coal, because of the tax savings from not emitting the CO2. Coal currently costs about 2.5 cents/kWh, clean coal about 10 cents/kWh. Prototyped concentrated solar power (CSP, like solar thermal, which is way better than photovoltaic and already has baseload reliability) today costs about 7 cents/kWh. Get it? At this price point solar beats coal! And this means lots of new investments and jobs and growth. And these technologies will not just create more economic opportunities, but better ones. It is estimated for instance that each gigawatt of solar thermal energy will require 3,400 construction jobs and 250 permanent employees, twice the rate as a typical coal or gas plant. (Krupp, 65) So now more digging....
The CTC’s proposed $37 per ton revenue-neutral carbon tax, ratcheted up the same amount each year over the next decade, is consistent with the recommended range of both the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the influential Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. A $37/ton carbon tax is equivalent to about a $10 per ton tax on carbon dioxide. CO2 would then have a price of about $100/ton at the end of 10 years under the CTC’s plan, or about $80/ton CO2 when adjusted for inflation.
This price point is consistent with the range of recommended prices provided by the IPCC and Stern review, and close to the conclusions of the Inter-Academy Council of Sciences. It is the consensus of these reports that such a level would provide the long-term price signal necessary for renewable technologies, from solar-thermal to carbon capture and storage, to be deployed at scale. It is also the consensus that it would stabilize CO2 concentrations at the threshold level of 550 ppm by century’s end. Absent such a price signal, CO2 levels under “business as usual” scenarios are projected to triple from pre-industrial levels to around 840 ppm. The last time CO2 levels were that high was about 40 million years ago when crocodiles roamed the North Pole.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cites a range of $20-80 per ton of CO2 equivalent by 2030 as the necessary level to stabilize emissions at 550 ppm. (IPCC Working Group III Report Summary for Policymakers, 19) The Stern Review cites a review of 103 separate estimates of the social cost of carbon gathered from 28 published papers. It determines the mean abatement cost from these estimates to be $29 per ton CO2 equivalent. (Stern, 287) However, the Review goes on to develop an economic model that more accurately incorporates the market valuation of risk from potential catastrophic climate change, concluding, “We would therefore point to numbers for the ‘business as usual’ social cost of carbon well above (perhaps a factor of three times) the Tol mean of $29/tCO2.” (Stern, 287) The report recommends a real CO2 price of $85/ton CO2 equivalent. The $80/ton real price of CO2 advocated by the Carbon Tax Center is then consistent with both the IPCC and Stern Review estimates.
The $80/ton CO2 price signal is also generally consistent with the conclusions of the Inter-Academy Council of Arts and Sciences. As the Inter-Academy emphasizes, it is far more critical that such a price signal be certain and long-term than it is to mandate emission cuts year by year, as a cap would do. As they write in their recent report, Lighting the Way: Toward A Sustainable Energy Future, “establishing in every market that there eventually will be an emissions price – in the range of US$ 27-41 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent – is more important than establishing exactly the number of years in which such a transition will occur.” (Chapter 4, 131) The Carbon Tax Center’s policy would put the price of CO2 in this range over a period of three or four years. It would then continue to ratchet up the price of CO2 as the transition costs to clean energies decreased alongside the renewed incentive for the development and deployment of such technologies. These reduced transition costs would act to mute the economic costs of further CO2 price increases.
It is notable that all three reports, reflecting the consensus of the scientific community, determine that there is a clear threshold price level necessary to induce widespread clean technology development. Such a price level is far from guaranteed under a cap and trade system, where prices can exhibit significant volatility. Under the Chicago Climate Exchange for example, the largest traded market in the world for greenhouse gas emissions allowances, the price per ton of CO2 has fluctuated between $1-7 over the past five years since its founding. This falls $13 below the lowest recommended level mentioned in the Stern Report, IPCC or the Inter-Academy. Such a low price level per ton does not make clean energies cost-competitive, nor does it provide the necessary incentive to prevent harmful anthropogenic climate change. A carbon tax shift guarantees price-competitiveness for renewable energies.
It is estimated that in the long-term carbon dioxide will need a price per ton of at least $30 to make the vitally important technology of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) cost-competitive. This is no small matter. As Stern notes, without CCS the world will need a “dramatic shift away from existing fossil fuel technologies” (Stern, 368). With atmospheric concentrations of CO2 already at 380 ppm, and almost certainly to reach at least 450 ppm in the coming decades, some scientists say we cannot reduce concentrations below 550 ppm without carbon capture and storage. Given the pervasiveness and entrenched interests of coal producers in both the United States and emerging economies like China, it is unlikely any mitigation legislation could move forward without meaningfully incenting CCS technology.
Dr. Klaus Lackner, Professor of Geophysics and Director of the Lenfest Center for Sustainable Energy at Columbia University, estimates the long-term cost of capturing and storing CO2 to be at or below $30 ton. He has pioneered a technology that can suck CO2 out of the air and store it safely underground in an inert solid form. As he comments, “With off-the-shelf items we have right now, I can drive the cost of CO2 capture from air below $100 per ton of CO2. And I feel that, if you pursue this longer, the ultimate end game will be below $30 per ton of CO2.” (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-june06/globalwarming_06-08.html) If his forecast proves correct, a real price of about $80/ton CO2 makes widespread deployment of CCS a no-brainer. If CCS cost reductions prove harder to come by, $80/ton CO2 makes carbon capture technologies essentially cost-competitive at current prices. The Carbon Tax Center’s plan provides the necessary incentive for the deployment of CCS under either scenario.
The bottom line is that an $80/ton long-term real price on CO2 reflects a broad scientific consensus. It is the level needed to incent the critically important long-term deployment of carbon capture and sequestration technology. Without CCS, hundreds of new coal plants in developing countries will pour tens of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in the coming decades. Without CCS you will be ignoring 55% of current CO2 emissions in the United States. CCS is a game changer. With a cap system there is no guarantee, to firms or developers or society, that CCS is an investment that will pay off. At an average price of some $4/ton CO2, like we see in the Chicago Climate Exchange or the European Union, it would be much cheaper for energy providers just to purchase allowances (or not comply) than retrofit plants with carbon capture technologies.
A tax shift is not just better for the climate and emerging clean technologies than cap and trade, it also offers the greatest potential for political compromise. These political strengths were on full display during the recent U.S. Senate debate of the Liebermann-Warner Climate Security Act. Critics of the Act correctly pointed out that the cap and trade system represents an over $4 trillion tax increase, as about 50% of the revenues raised over the next 40 years via auctioned permits are kept by the Treasury.
Add on a “safety-valve” provision (which would put a price ceiling of about $12-22 per ton CO2 via the government releasing (worthless) permits as necessary to maintain the ceiling) there is no clear price signal for carbon capture and sequestration deployment, or solar for that matter. Additionally, with a safety-valve market participants would be forced to purchase and trade permits that don’t even maintain the stated emissions reduction goals, as they are above the cap. Throw in the potential for massive volatility, and it is unclear what the adjustment and abatement costs for regulated firms will ultimately be under a cap system. And this uncertainty will only keep more clean energy capital waiting on the sidelines. As the Wall Street Journal points out, The Climate Security Act would represent the largest income redistribution since the advent of the income tax. With a tax shift from income or labor onto carbon this potent and effective argument against tackling global climate change disappears overnight.
Additionally, by returning the revenues of a carbon tax to the private sector, foreign companies that do not yet have to similarly comply will not gain a competitive advantage as domestic tax levels will remain unchanged. Such concerns could also probably be offset with WTO compliant (particularly GATT Articles 3, 11 and 20 - paper I wrote on this) cross border adjustments (tariffs) for countries that have less stringent standards than the U.S. This however would lead to long and unpleasant arbitration and probably result in retaliation by large U.S. trading partners for years to come. The fact is that with a meaningful price on carbon the United States will see huge new economic investment and growth. Jobs and capital will flow to areas like direct current transmission lines, so called “smart grids” that allow consumers to sell clean energy back to utilities via feed-in tariffs, carbon capture retrofitting, and proven renewable energy sources, among many others. Once it is apparent that a revenue neutral price on carbon is a win for the economy, the environment and national security, other countries will not be able to jump on the bandwagon fast enough. With SO2, ozone and particulate pollution it was either the EU or U.S. who first led and lesser developed countries, like China and India, who soon followed. The same would happen if the U.S. led by putting a real price on carbon. The opportunities stare the United States in the face.
The CTC’s plan has the science right. It is consistent with every major international consensus report on the economics of climate change. It is consistent with the incentive needed for critically important carbon capture and renewable energy technologies. It is revenue-neutral, unlike the fatally-flawed Climate Security Act. And with the potential for commensurate tax offsets, ranging from corporate to personal income taxes, to the FICA payroll tax, to straight dividends returned to every household – it offers a tremendous opportunity for both increased economic efficiency and political compromise. Oh yeah, and it could save the planet too.
